Latest news with #RomanCatholics
Egypt Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- Egypt Independent
Israel says it ‘deeply regrets' strike on Gaza's only Catholic church, pledges investigation
CNN — Israel said Thursday that it 'deeply regrets' a deadly strike on Gaza's only Catholic church, which killed three people. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has jurisdiction for Roman Catholics in Gaza, said the Holy Family Church was struck by Israel on Thursday morning. The church has become a shelter for the enclave's tiny Christian community amid the 20-month war. The office of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that 'Israel deeply regrets that a stray ammunition hit Gaza's Holy Family Church. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy.' 'Israel is investigating the incident and remains committed to protecting civilians and holy sites,' the office added in a statement. Pope Leo received a phone call from Netanyahu on Friday, following the strike, the Vatican said, in which the patriarch expressed the importance of protecting places of worship. During the phone call, which Netanyahu's office is yet to comment on, Leo renewed his calls for a ceasefire to be reached by the warring sides in Gaza, a statement said. Pope Leo 'again expressed his concern for the dramatic humanitarian situation of the population in Gaza, whose heartbreaking price is paid especially by children, the elderly and the sick,' according to the statement. Leaders from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church visited the church on Thursday, in a highly unusual trip given Israel's tight control over access in and out of the territory. Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, together with Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, visited the enclave to show their support for Gaza's Catholics, according to a statement from the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The two expressed 'the shared pastoral solicitude of the Churches of the Holy Land and their concern for the community of Gaza,' according to a statement from the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Leaders from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church visited the church on Thursday, in a highly unusual trip. Omar Al-Qatta/AFP via Getty Images Netanyahu told US President Donald Trump in a phone call that the church incident was a 'mistake,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told a briefing Thursday. Asked about Trump's view on the strike, Leavitt described it as 'not a positive reaction.' The Israel Defense Forces acknowledged it hit the church 'mistakenly.' 'An initial inquiry into reports regarding injured individuals in the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, suggests that fragments from a shell fired during operational activity in the area hit the church mistakenly,' the IDF said in a statement on Thursday. 'The cause of the incident is under review.' Church 'directly' hit Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, told Vatican News that the church was hit 'directly' by a tank Thursday morning. The parish priest, Father Gabriel Romanelli, was injured in the attack, the patriarchate said, alongside a number of others. Romanelli is an Argentine who has ministered in Gaza for close to 30 years. It named the three killed as Saad Issa Kostandi Salameh, Foumia Issa Latif Ayyad and Najwa Abu Dawood. Several others were also injured. Images verified by CNN showed the church was damaged in the attack, but the crucifix on top of the church's roof appeared intact. The church has come under attack once before amid Israel's war in Gaza. In December 2023, an Israeli military sniper shot and killed two women who were sheltering inside, according to the patriarchate. The church is known internationally for its close connection with the late Pope Francis, who would call the parish almost daily as the war raged on. Only around 1,000 Christians are thought to have lived in Gaza before the October 7 attacks, which is overwhelmingly a Muslim territory. Meanwhile ceasefire talks to end the war in Gaza, which Palestinian officials say has killed over 58,000 people, are continuing. Israel may show flexibility on a key sticking point in the talks, sources have told CNN, as negotiators attempt to close the gaps preventing the first pause in months of fighting. Specifically, there could be some flexibility from Israel on the potential withdrawal of its troops from the Morag Corridor – a key Israeli security zone in the southern Gaza strip – a source familiar with the matter told CNN on Thursday. The corridor was established by Israeli forces in April with the stated intention of dividing up Gaza and exerting greater pressure on Hamas. Its name refers to the Jewish settlement of Morag that once lay between the cities of Khan Younis and Rafah in the south of the territory. The US had talked up the prospects of a quick agreement in the talks, which had gained momentum after a deal ended the brief Israel-Iran conflict last month. But days of talks yielded no breakthrough. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. Related: US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. Related: US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
USA Today
27-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools
The nation's highest court has spoken, but the debate over kids' exposure to LGBTQ+ literature and culture in America's schools is far from over. Religious and conservative parents' rights groups are rejoicing while teachers, authors and civil rights advocates sound an alarm that schools could soon become less inclusive after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow parents to pull their children out of classes with material they object to on religious divided court sided with a group of Maryland parents who complained that their school district refused to allow them to opt out their kids of English language arts classes when books with LGBTQ+ characters are included. Parents from Montgomery County Public Schools – which include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – argued the district's policy banning them from opting out intruded on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision, saying American parents should be able to remove their kids from the lessons to protect their families' religious ideologies. Books with LGBTQ+ teachings and characters "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court's majority. The court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing, he said. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has backed the Maryland school district's policy, said the school district's curriculum, which began to include storybooks for elementary schools with LGBTQ+ characters in 2022, is secular, age-appropriate and designed to be inclusive. The ACLU called the decision "deeply disappointing." "This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system," Liliana López, a spokesperson for the district, said in an email to USA TODAY on behalf of the school district and the Montgomery Board of Education. "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community. Public schools are facing heightened scrutiny over what's taught in their classrooms, increased pressure from conservative parents and additional surveillance over the programs and curriculum they offer to LGBTQ+ youth they serve. The court's decision represents the celebration and panic for parents across the political spectrum. The Supreme Court's decision advances President Donald Trump's and several conservative parent rights groups' disdain against LGBTQ+ programming in schools. The Trump administration has backed the Maryland parents in the case, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.' GOP leaders: Are calling for religion in public schools. It's not the first time. What could it mean for school culture? Fears of an unwelcoming environment in public schools for LGBTQ+ students erupted after the decision. LGBTQ+ students already face a high chance of rejection, bullying, discrimination and violence at school. These students are at high risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and attempts of suicide, according to data from Child Mind Institute. Attorneys from the ACLU said the Supreme Court's decision could have "far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities." The decision advances the mission of Trump and his education department to ban programming about LGTBQ+ and other social and racial justice issues in schools. This year, the Trump administration has demanded public schools ax publicly funded programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. The DEI programming includes those that offer LGBTQ+ students support. The U.S. Department of Education cannot directly control classroom curriculum, which is in the hands of the states. But it has said it will slash their federal funding for violating a federal civil rights law if they do not comply with the order. (Thousands of schools in more than a dozen states have objected.) With the Supreme Court decision, the outcomes "could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Mach called religious freedom "fundamentally important." But he said that freedom "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views." Parents who say schools shouldn't be the ones to teach their kids about these issues anticipate a more welcoming place for their families. 'This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund, a nonprofit, public-interest legal and educational institute with the mission of protecting free expressions of faiths. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised." Meanwhile, teachers are bracing for how the ruling could affect their lesson plans, students and classrooms. 'By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach," according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the National Education Association. LGBTQ+ advocates See Trump's actions on Pride Month as 'bullying' What about religion in schools? Religious groups have applauded the Supreme Court's decision. Their support comes during a GOP wave calling for more religion in schools. Oklahoma's top education official has ordered public schools to teach the Bible. He also wanted state funding for a controversial religious charter school before that idea was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year in a deadlocked 4-4 decision. Louisiana leaders directed schools to display the Ten Commandments, but that has been blocked by a federal court. Texas leaders proposed a curriculum that incorporates biblical lessons. Parents and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit against it. Some school administrators and civil rights advocates have fought back, saying these mandates violate students' rights. Cecillia Wang, a national legal director of the ACLU, said she is worried about the court's decision to side with parents on this case because it could affect schools' ability to implement lessons in the future that may "trigger religious objections." "For the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences," Wang wrote in an email. How about book bans? The Maryland parents who sued the school district said they don't want the books removed from schools. But Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for free speech advocacy group PEN America, said further book bans across the nation's public schools are likely as a result of the court's decision. "By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools," Brinkley said. "This will exacerbate that devastating trend." A majority of the 16,000 books banned in schools since 2021 are LGBTQ+ themed, according to data from PEN America. The group's data shows book bans nearly tripled during the 2023-2024 school year, with over 10,000 books banned in public schools. Parents who have argued for book bans across the nation often say that the content is inappropriate for a school setting. Or they disagree with the content in the literature and don't want their kids to be exposed to it. A group of authors and illustrators named in the Maryland case said they disagree with the court's decision. Those include the authors and illustrators of LGBTQ+-themed books: "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," "Jacob's Room to Choose" and "Love, Violet." "We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families," they wrote in an email. "And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect." United States public schools Banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 academic year, report says Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Thao Nguyen; USA TODAY Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read, another move that favors claims of religious discrimination over other values, like gay rights. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing. The books, he said, "unmistakably convey a partaicular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender." "And the (school) Board has specficially encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree," he wrote. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the deicsion "threatens the very essence of public education," which includes exposure to new ideas. "The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the demoratic process and local administrators," she wrote. "The reveberations of the Court's error will be feld, I fear, for generations." The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they're not trying to prevent other students from reading the books. But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect. And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims. In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April's oral arguments. School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community. The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse. The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man. The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.' More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class. But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read. The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions. 'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.' But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views. The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with parents trying to avoid LGBTQ+ books
